Posted on 07/15/2005 9:22:45 AM PDT by NYer
The Catholic church will not baptize the child of a same-sex couple if both parents want to sign the certificate of baptism, the Conference of Catholic Bishops said yesterday.
The church's position emerged after independent Senator Marcel Prud'homme took issue with testimony from Marc Cardinal Ouellet on Wednesday at Senate committee hearings into the same-sex marriage bill.
Cardinal Ouellet, who explained Roman Catholic opposition to the legislation is based partly on church doctrine against homosexual acts, said the Civil Marriage Act will present a range of difficult issues other than the question of marriage solemnization if the bill becomes law, as expected next week.
"If I take the example of the ceremony of baptism, according to our canon law, we cannot accept the signatures of two fathers or two mothers as parents of an infant," Cardinal Ouellet told the committee. "With a law that makes these unions official, situations of this will multiply and this threatens to disturb not just the use of our territory, but also our archives and other aspects of the life of our communities."
His statement left the impression with several senators and observers that Catholic church rules would not allow the baptism of children of same-sex couples, even if the marriage bill passes.
Mr. Prud'homme, a Catholic, said the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance. "It's a question of rules, but I consider a baby a gift of God," he said in an interview.
"If two mothers or two fathers come to baptize a baby, how can you turn down baptism? To me it's insane. Even if they have to change the ruling of the baptism certificate. Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"
But after Mr. Prud'homme expressed shock with the idea of Catholic refusal of baptism for children of same-sex marriages, an official with the Conference of Catholic Bishops said yesterday that would only be the case if both fathers or both mothers insisted on signing the baptismal certificate.
Benoit Bariteau, associate general secretary of the conference, suggested the parents would be to blame for the failure to obtain baptism for their child by insisting on both signatures.
"If the parents insist that the two signatures be on the act of baptism, if we say no, it will be their choice of seeking baptism or not," said Mr. Bariteau.
Asked whether that meant that if both same-sex parents insist on signing the certificate, the baptism will not take place, Mr. Bariteau repled: "No."
He explained that if one signature is sufficient for both parents, the church would not refuse to baptize children of a same-sex couple.
The example highlights the problem churches are set to face due to the same-sex marriage law, even though a host of witnesses assured the Senate committee that the freedom of religion guarantees under the Charter of Rights will prevent churches from being forced to marry gay couples.
Meanwhile, the broader question of how children are hurt by societal attitudes and laws concerning homosexuality and same-sex relationships came to the fore during the final day of testimony before a Senate committee yesterday.
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
Mr. Prud'homme. God created man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Homosexuals cannot accomplish this task. It's really that simple.
The logical progression in the liberal agenda after gay marriage is to use that privilege, once granted, against the Christian churches by trying to force concessions from the churches for gay couples.
Baptism is not a "rule". Its a covenant and commitment between parents, sponsors, congregations and God.
Any one of those parties mentioned can refuse the baptism.
This signature issue is utter sillyness...it cheapens the sacrament. The baptism should not be refused, the child should be brought in to the church without its "parents" and get baptized. The act of baptism is not represented in the piece of paper you get.
Yes, it is inevitable.
Already in Vermont, there was recently a story about a small business owner who runs some sort of inn popular for hosting weddings, being bullied by a couple seeking a 'civil union.'
In the end, it will prove impossible to separate public from private, so the best thing to do is offer legal recognition only to traditional marriages, you know, like it has always been.
"If two mothers or two fathers come to baptize a baby, how can you turn down baptism? To me it's insane. Even if they have to change the ruling of the baptism certificate. Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"
Being a Jew and not a Catholic, I couldn't be positive, but I do believe it...oh, yes...WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. It's not ok in the Tanakh (old Testament), and it's not ok in the New Testament, which makes it positively not ok in Catholicism at all. Or in any Judeo-Christian denomination worthy of the description.
Homosexual Agenda "This is Just the Beginning" Ping.
Just the beginning. More to follow - no doubt things we can't even imagine in a nightmare are now percolating as we speak. Abominations R Us.
I have an alternative rallying cry: "Stop legislating immorality!"
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Nowhere does the Cardinal say he is not going to baptize children. He only says women can't sign the slot on the paper for "father" and men can't sign the slot on the paper for "mother."
I think so. I was a big fan of JP II myself, and I think he did a wonderful job. And actually, I think the Catholic Church is one of the best things in the world (for the most part; like anything made or touched by man, IMHO, it still has flaws). The reason why, IMO, the Catholic Church is singled out for so much PC revision is because its so powerful, and so effective as a force for order and morality in the world.
I like how Christians of all sorts and Jews get along these days. And I think its important that we all continue to, because with the hideous assault on religious precepts that the godless left is launching (hey, if we're the religious right, than they are definitely the godless left) we all need to stand together and fight them back, side by side. We have important differences, but we all believe in morality, decency, truth, justice and G-d. And that, in the end, is enough to bring us all together.
I'm sure that if the actual, a/k/a real, parents wanted to sign, there would be no problem.
Calling a homosexual couple the "parents" of a child is perverse and should not be allowed.
Why not go to a thread where someone gives a whit about what you think?
Not for you to decide, jerk.
Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"
Well gee, moron, if THEY are not Catholic (which they are NOT) then why should they teacj anything relating to Catholicism? Idiot.
Not for you to decide, jerk.
Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"
Well gee, moron, if THEY are not Catholic (which they are NOT) then why should they teach anything relating to Catholicism? Idiot.
Properly formatted this time, sheesh.
The Catechism defines what constitutes a valid baptism. Among other things, either a father's or a mother's consent is necessary, unless there is an exceptional circumstance. The consent is then a part of the sacrament and any tinkering with it, such as a male presenting himself as a "mother", or a female presenting herself as a "father", or there being two "mothers" consenting, or two "fathers", will invalidate it. It is very good that these people want the children in their custody baptised, and there is a way for them to do so validly: have a real mother or a real father take the sacramental part, and the partner be a witness to it, or maybe a godparent.
What I suspect is really happening is that the gay activists want to smuggle a recognition of their bogus "parenthood" through the back door.
Either way, it really won't matter. Baptism of children or adults doesn't save, nor does it reduce sin in any way.
Secretly baptizing Jewish children? What's your source?
"Among other things, either a father's or a mother's consent is necessary"
Is it either/or?
If one parent has to sneak around to the priest with the baby because the other parent opposes, should the priest confer the sacrament?
(Honest question; no ulterior motives.)
With regard to the Jewish Children who, during the German occupation, have been entrusted to Catholic institutions and families and whom Jewish institutions are reclaiming to be entrusted to them, the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office has taken a decision which can be summarized as follows:
1) Avoid, as much as possible, to answer in writing to Jewish authorities, but do it orally.
2) Each time that it will be necessary to respond, it must be said that the Church must make its inquiries to study each case separately;
3) The children who have been baptized could not be entrusted to institutions which would not be in a position to ensure their Christian education;
4) For the children who have lost their relatives, given that the Church looked after them, it would not be appropriate that they would be abandoned by the Church or entrusted to persons who have no rights over them, at least until they are in a position to dispose of themselves. This, obviously, for the children who would not have been baptized.
5) If the children were entrusted by relatives, and if the relatives reclaim them now, inasmuch as the children have not been baptized, they can be returned to them.
The church's stance that a baptized child is irrevocably Christian was established nearly a century before the Holocaust, when, in 1858, papal guards took Edgardo Mortara, 6, from his family in Bologna when word spread that he had been clandestinely baptized by a Catholic maid.
Logic impaired, eh?
The baptisms were not "secret," but open, for the purposes of keeping the Nazis from murdering the children as Jews.
And most importantly, what you have posted makes no reference to refusing to return the children to their parents, but only to "institutions" and "persons who have no rights over them."
Paragraph (5) specifically and explicitly contradicts you.
This is how I read it also.
This article ends with: The example highlights the problem churches are set to face, etc.
The problem will not be that the RCC church would withhold grace from the child.
Churches that believe the Sacrament of Baptism does something to the individual baptized, such as infusing grace or faith, will not want to refuse the sacrament to anyone.
"in 1858"
Oh, yeah? Well, in 1877, a Jewish person in lower Moldavia made a disrespectful remark about the wood carvings in a church in upper Slobbovia, so I guess that tells you all you need to know about Judaism.
Schmendrick.
Yes, I believe only one parent's consent is necessary. But I found nothing about that in the Catechism. Can anyone provide a reference?
It existed long before that, actually.
papal guards took Edgardo Mortara, 6, from his family in Bologna when word spread that he had been clandestinely baptized by a Catholic maid.
Young Mr. Mortara was in danger of death at the time, but recovered.
It was actually against the law at the time for a Jewish family to employ a Catholic domestic, in part to prevent exactly this situation from happening.
Edgardo was raised personally by Pope Pius IX as though he were the Pope's own son. When offered the opportunity, at age 18, to renounce his Catholicism, he refused. He later became a priest and wrote a book effusively praising Pius IX.
(Just some additional details about the story you may not have heard.)
This was church policy, as directed by the Pope so your made up analogy isn't even apt.
So if you steal a child from his parents and treat him nice it is OK?
"This was church policy, as directed by the Pope so your made up analogy isn't even apt."
Campion has already blasted your "history" out of the water, so why don't you just give it a rest?
"so your made up analogy isn't even apt."
It's called "using absurdity to illustrate absurdity." It only works on people who have a sense of the absurd.
Catholic canon law requires that the parents have a well-founded intention to raise the child in the Catholic faith. In fact, they have to specifically indicate their intent and willingness to do so during the liturgy. (I should know, I've been there and done that 4 times.)
How could a pair of homosexuals do that? How could they, with a straight face, recite the Christian baptismal promises? ("Do you reject Satan?" "I do" "And all his works?" "I do" "And all his empty promises?" "I do")
"Yes, I believe only one parent's consent is necessary."
Thanks.
for clarity. I did say it was a sacrament.
maybe you missed that.
The Catholic teaching is that baptism remits the original sin and is, ordinarily, necessary for salvation. It is not a guarantee of salvation, although if a baptised infant dies before age of reason, we can be confident of his salvation because the baptism remitted the original sin, and the invincible ignorance of the infancy prevented him from committing a personal sin.
Through the back door? Bad choice of words there.
It isn't "history" it is history. And pointing out that they were NICE to the child they stole from his parents and that he was lifelong Catholic after his theft and indoctrination hardly "blasts" anything "out of the water".
And I have a good sense of the absurd. That would be your absurd argument.
As I've already pointed out, the error was the maid's, in baptizing the child in the first place.
Once he's baptized, he's a Christian. Christians are responsible to ensure that Christians are given the opportunity to practice their faith. At least they were back when they actually believed in the Christian faith.
Keep in mind that the Pope was the secular chief of state, at that time, in that place. If you haven't noticed, the government(s) of the US also claim the moral right to "steal children from their parents and treat them nice". If the nice people from child protective services ever pay you a visit, I suggest you don't smart off too much to them, or you'll find yourself before a judge trying to get your kids back.
Precisely right. I don't see how a priest could in good conscience baptize a child under such conditions.
I'm no fan of gay marriage, but when you say gays can't have a well founded intention to raise their child in the Catholic faith and can't reject Satan and all his works you seem to raise homosexuality to a higher level of sin than all others. Is it because they are not fighting against their sin? It seems to me it would be a pretty rare parent you does not sin, and rarer and rarer the parent who confesses and professes sorrow over those sins he/she repeats continually.
They're not only not fighting against it, they're proclaiming and celebrating it publicly.
and rarer and rarer the parent who confesses and professes sorrow over those sins he/she repeats continually.
You can't "profess sorrow" over a sin you objectively intend to repeat.
The child of a man and woman who are cohabiting and refuse to marry should not be baptized either, for exactly the same reason.
I would of course make an exception if the child is in danger of death, but anyone can baptize under those circumstances.
I understand what you are saying and have been to several RCC baptisms, but I do believe that the church will find a way to go ahead with it, because of the innocence of the child. Using godparents, for instance, to answer the questions.
The parents have to affirm that they will raise the child in the Faith.
Same sex "couples" do not have children. The rest is irrelevant.
We'll see. To not baptize the child would mean that the church is withholding priceless grace and preventing faith in the child.
I came into the Catholic Church at Easter, so forgive me if I misunderstand, but you seem to be saying that anyone who sins and fully expects to sin again (say, for example, tell a lie) cannot baptize their children in the Catholic faith. Who is able to get between the gay person and his priest or the gay person and God and know the state of his or her soul? I don't recall sinless parents being a condition of infant baptism from RCIA, but I'll go back and read my Schreck book again.
Neither do sterile couples, and yet they adopt and baptize.
It seems clear to me, "Yes we will baptize the child. No, you cannot both pretend to be it's parents in order to advance your perversion and sin".
Same sex people cannot be parents of the same child. Not possible.
No such thing as two mommies or two daddies. It's a homosexual and liberal invention.
And if any state allows two people like that to adopt a child as equal parents, they are imbeciles. (and liberals)
Dear Bryher1,
There's a difference between intending to do something, and recognizing that one may very well wind up doing it, anyway.
Believe me when I tell you, I do not INTEND at the beginning of Thanksgiving dinner to eat more food than I ought. Nonetheless, most years, I do, and I recognize that it is likely that this coming Thanksgiving, I may very well do it again.
However, I don't intend it. Proof of this is that there have been years when my intellect has actually won the battle with my stomach, and I've actually eaten a relatively modest amount of food at Thanksgiving.
However, there is clear intent on the part of the two homosexuals to sin again. It isn't that it is their expectation that they may very well fall back into sin, but rather, they don't even recognize anymore that their sin is a sin.
Furthermore, their sin is not a private one. It is not that they practice evil quietly, at least with the tribute of hypocrisy that vice pays to virtue. No, they insist, through baptizing their child, not only is their sin not a sin, and not only that they personally reject the sinfulness of their sin, but also, that the entire Church must approve of their sin, as well. Because, in that they say they will reject evil, even as they present themselves as a "married couple," the rest of us who confirm their actions (and the community does confirm the actions of those baptizing, through witnesses), they create the inference that we accept their sin.
Thus, they give scandal on top of all else.
The bottom line is that these people don't even agree with the basic moral teaching of the Church. How can they, in good faith, participate in the baptism of a child where they must commit to the moral teaching of the Church?
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.